Hispanic  American  Apprecia- 
tions of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine 


By 

WILLIAM  SPENCE  ROBERTSON 


Reprinted  from  The  Hispanic  American  Historical  Review , 
Vol.  Illy  No.  1}  February y 1920 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/hispanicamerican00robe_0 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 


Reprinted  from  Thb  Hispanic  American  Historical  Review,  Vol.  Ill,  No.  1,  February,  1920 


KM 


O 

\\. 


HISPANIC  AMERICAN  APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE 
MONROE  DOCTRINE1 

The  purpose  of  this  article  is  to  describe  the  reactions  pro- 
duced in  Hispanic  America  by  the  application  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  the  boundary  dispute  between  Venezuela  and  Great 
Britain. 

To  suggest  briefly  the  origins  of  the  dispute.  England,  who 
secured  the  title  to  Dutch  Guiana  in  1814,  had  asserted  a right 
to  territory  which  was  claimed  by  Venezuela  as  the  heir  of 
Spain.  The  territory  in  dispute  eventually  included  a region 
which  extended  in  a southeasterly  direction  from  the  Orinoco 
delta  to  the  Essequibo  River.  Near  the  northern  edge  of  the 
disputed  territory  was  the  estuary  of  the  Orinoco  River — a key 
to  the  vast  hinterland  of  South  America.  England  offered  to 
settle  the  controversy  by  negotiating  a treaty,  while  Venezuela 
in  vain  expressed  her  desire  to  submit  the  dispute  to  arbitra- 
tion. On  February  20;  _1887>  after  vainly  asking  English  colo- 
nists to  evacuate  valuable  territory  in  the  Orinoco  delta,  Vene- 
zuela announced  that  she  had  suspended  diplomatic  relations 
with  the  government  of  England)  Evidently  the  Venezuelan 
government  feared  that  the  English  desired  to  secure  a strategic 
position  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco.  To  paraphrase  the  lan- 
guage of  Rafael  Seijas,  Venezuela’s  leading  authority  on  inter- 

1 A paper  read,  in  part,  at  the  conference  on  Hispanic  American  history  of  the 
American  Historical  Association  at  Cleveland  on  December  30,  1919. 

1 


2 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


national  law,  the  acquisition  of  that  delta  by  England  would 
have  made  the  citizens  of  Venezuela  her  tributaries  and  colonists. 

Invoking  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  May,  1887,  Venezuela’s 
minister  at  Washington  asked  Secretary  of  State  Bayard  to  pro- 
mote the  adjustment  of  the  controversy_by_ arbitration. 2 This 
appeal  was  echoed  in  Venezuela.  Early  in  1894  a contributor  to 
the  Diario  de  Caracas  argued  that  the  expansion  of  England  in 
Guiana  was  a breach  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  for  the  districts 
which  were  being  taken  from  the  Venezuelan  republic  were 
thereby  made  “ the  possessions  of  monarchical  England.”3  In  the 
following  year  Rafael  Seijas  epitomized  his  country’s  position  in 
these  words: 

Venezuela  maintains  that  Holland  did  not  possess  all  that  territory 
which  England  claims  as  her  successor.  This  assertion  is  based  upon 
countless  proofs.  England  has  advanced  her  stations  along  the  bor- 
ders of  the  Orinoco  as  far  as  the  Amacuro.  ...  In  this  grave  con- 
flict Venezuela  has  appealed  to  her  sisters  on  this  continent,  and  par- 
ticularly to  the  United  States  of  America.4 

Secretary  of  State  Olney’s  dogmatic  dispatch  to  the  United 
States  minister  in  London  on  July  20,  1895,  interpreting  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  a most  liberal  fashion  and  asserting  that 
“the  fiat  of  the  United  States  was  law  upon  the  American  conti- 
nent” did  not  induce  Lord  Salisbury,  the  English  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs,  to  arbitrate  the  controversy.5  Hence, 
on  December  7,  1895,  President  Cleveland  sent  a trenchant  mes- 
sage to  Congress  expressing  his  view  that  the  extension  of  bound- 
aries by  a European  power  so  as  to  take  possession  of  the  terri- 
tory of  an  Hispanic  American  state  against  her  will  constituted 
a case  under  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  asserting  that  this  Doc- 
trine found  its  recognition  in  certain  principles  of  international 
law.6 

2 Cleveland,  The  Venezuelan  Boundary  Controversy,  71. 

3 Diario  de  Caracas  as  quoted  in  Limites  de  Guyana , 49. 

4 Seijas,  “To  the  London  Times1 1 (Translated  from  “ A The  London  Times ”, 
in  Diario  de  Caracas,  November  25,  1895),  p.  20. 

6 For  Olney's  dispatch,  see  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1895,  part 
I,  pp.  545-562. 

6 Ibid.,  543. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


3 


In  Venezuela  Cleveland's  vigorous  policy  was  greeted  with 
enthusiasm.  Reports  or  summaries  of  his  message  were  soon 
printed  in  her  newspapers.7  On  December  18,  El  Pregonero  of 
Caracas  circulated  broadsides  proposing  that  a patriotic  manifes- 
tation should  be  held  to  honor  the  United  States  in  the  person  of 
her  minister  in  Venezuela.  Such  a tribute  was  paid  on  that  very 
evening.  In  an  account  of  the  celebration  this  journal  declared, 
“The  die  is  cast  and  the  generous  supporters  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  are  ranged  by  our  side."8 

Venezuela's  Academy  of  History  held  a special  meeting  on 
December  23  to  voice  its  “profound  gratitude"  at  the  policy 
pursued  by  the  President  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  Guiana  boundary  dispute.9  The  Sim6n  Bolivar  Club  of 
Caracas  soon  prepared  a program  for  a monster  celebration  to 
take  place  on  December  25.  As  a badge  its  members  used  a 
rosette  bearing  the  colors  of  Venezuela  and  the  United  States. 
Upon  Christmas  Day  a procession  accordingly  started  from  the 
Plaza  Bolivar  and  passed  through  the  principal  streets  of  Cara- 
cas, preceded  by  the  standards  of  Venezuela  and  the  United 
States.  In  describing  the  march  of  his  jubilant  fellow  country- 
men through  avenues  whose  balconies  were  decorated  with 
American  flags  and  crowded  with  Venezuelan  belles,  the  editor 
of  El  Pregonero  affirmed  that  the  pen  fell  helpless  from  his 
fingers.  A Venezuelan  made  a speech  in  front  of  the  American 
legation  avowing  that  because  of  the  declaration  by  the  United 
States  that  the  western  hemisphere  was  not  open  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  protectorates  or  spheres  of  influence  by  European 
powers  the  names  of  President  Cleveland  and  of  the  nation  which 
he  so  worthily  represented  were  engraven  in  the  memories  of  his 
fellowcitizens.  In  the  plaza  near  the  national  pantheon  another 

7 Mention  of  Cleveland's  message  to  Congress  was  made  in  a cablegram  from 
Washington  printed  in  El  Pregonero , Caracas,  December  6,  1895.  On  December 
10  the  same  journal  published  a resum6  of  the  message.  On  January  2,  1896,  the 
Diario  de  Caracas,  Caracas,  published  a summary  of  the  message  and  excerpts 
in  Spanish  translation;  and  January  4,  1896,  a translation  was  published  in  El 
Pregonero. 

8 El  Pregonero,  December  19,  1895. 

9 Diario  de  Caracas,  January  10,  1896. 


4 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


orator  made  a speech  at  the  foot  of  Miranda’s  statue  declaring 
that  by  the  acceptance  of  the  moral  support  of  the  United  States 
his  fellow  countrymen  had  contracted  a debt  of  gratitude  which 
they  would  never  forget.  Upon  approaching  the  Washington 
Plaza  the  band  that  led  the  procession  played  the  Venezuelan 
national  hymn.  Enthusiastic  speeches  were  made  before  the 
statue  of  George  Washington  and  floral  decorations  were  laid 
around  its  pedestal.  In  the  words  of  the  Diario  de  Caracas: 

The  monument  of  the  father  of  Cleveland’s  country  was  completely 
covered  with  crosses,  flags,  flowers,  and  floral  emblems  which  were 
placed  there  by  our  noble  people  as  a token  of  their  gratitude  to  the 
great  nation  of  the  North.10 

Then  the  crowd  proceeded  to  the  mansion  of  President  Joa- 
quin Crespo.  There  a speaker  declared  in  exuberant  phrases 
that  the  American  eagle  would  protect  those  Spanish  American 
peoples  who  were  struggling  for  their  rights.  On  behalf  of  Vene- 
zuela’s president,  his  secretary  of  foreign  relations,  J.  F.  Castillo, 
responded  stating  that  his  government  counted  upon  the  support 
of  the  United  States — the  great,  progressive,  magnanimous  na- 
tion that  had  surprised  the  universe  “with  her  sovereign  respect 
for  the  immortal  principles  upon  which  were  based  the  Doctrine 
of  Monroe,  that  safeguard  of  American  public  law.”11  The  en- 
thusiastic Venezuelans  ended  their  march  in  the  central  plaza 
at  the  foot  of  the  equestrian  statue  of  Sim6n  Bolivar,  where  a 
speech  was  delivered  by  a representative  of  United  States  citi- 
zens residing  in  the  capital  city,  and  where — in  a fashion  typical 
of  Spanish  America,  Venezuelan  poets  chanted  their  verses.12 

On  January  4,  1896,  prominent  citizens  of  Caracas  gave  a 
banquet  in  the  national  library  in  honor  of  the  American  lega- 
tion. The  arches  and  columns  of  that  building  were  decorated 
with  the  interlaced  colors  of  Venezuela  and  the  United  States, 
and  in  its  halls  were  placed  busts  of  Bolivar,  Monroe,  and  Cleve- 
land. A military  band  played  the  national  hymns  of  Venezuela 

10  Diario  de  Caracas,  December  27,  1895. 

11  Ibid. 

i*  Ibid. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


5 


and  the  United  States.  In  eloquent  Castilian  phrases  Jos6  R. 
Nunez  praised  the  policy  of  the  United  States,  characterizing 
Monroe  as  “the  worthy  founder  of  the  expansive  doctrine. 

” 13 

The  aggressive  attitude  of  the  United  States  government 
evoked  approval  from  juntas , municipal  councils,  and  local 
societies .)  Several  Venezuelan  states  displayed  their  patriotic 
sentiments.  On  January  4,  1896,  the  legislative  assembly  of 
the  state  of  Zulia,  inspired  by  “sentiments  of  genuine  gratitude 
because  of  the  noble  conduct  of  the  President  and  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,”  thankful  “to  the  heroic  North- American 
people  for  the  applause  with  which  they  had  received  the  trans- 
cendental decisions  of  their  government,”  anxious  to  furnish 
“in  case  of  war  as  large  a contingent  as  possible”  to  support  the 
cause  of  Venezuela  which  was  protected  by  the  United  States  “in 
the  name  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine”,  resolved  to  thank  President 
Cleveland  for  his  message.  This  assembly  also  resolved  to  ex- 
press gratification  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  “for 
the  good  reception  which  it  had  given  to  that  notable  message”, 
and  for  its  courageous  deliberations  about  the  Monroe  Doctrine — 
“ the  safeguard  of  the  rights  of  the  American  Continent!”14  Two 
days  later  Zulia’s  legislature  adopted  a resolution  declaring 
that  the  intervention  of  the  United  States  government  insured  a 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  dangerous  controversy  over  Guiana. 
It  decided  to  congratulate  President  Crespo  upon  “the  energetic 
and  decided  attitude  which  the  government  and  the  people  of 
the  United  States  had  assumed.  . . .”15 

On  January  7,  President  Aquilino  Ju&rez  of  the  state  of  Lara 
declared  to  the  legislature  that  the  Venezuelan  people  should  be 
grateful  for  the 

singular  demonstration  of  confraternity  which  had  been  shown  them 
by  the  Great  Republic  of  the  North,  the  nurse  of  Washington  and 
Monroe.  . . 16 

13  El  Pregonero,  January  6,  1896. 

14  Diario  de  Caracas , January  21,  1896. 

15  Ibid. 

ltIbid.f  January  16,  1896.  At  this  juncture  the  chief  executive  of  each  state 
in  the  Venezuelan  union  was  ordinarily  styled  president. 


6 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


Shortly  afterwards  this  legislature  thanked  the  United  States 
which,  “in  the  name  of  justice  and  civilization”,  had  so  generously 
sprung  to  Venezuela’s  side!  It  further  resolved  to  express  to 
President  Cleveland  in  the  name  of  its  constituents 

the  most  sincere  sentiments  of  gratitude  and  of  patriotic  support  for 
his  eloquent  and  high-minded  message  to  Congress  in  defense  of  our 
territory.  . . 17 

President  Nicolas  Rolando  of  the  state  of  Barcelona  sent  a 
special  message  to  the  legislature  of  his  state  upon  January  8, 
mentioning  the  pleasure  with  which  the  president  and  the  people 
of  Venezuela  had  received  the  news  that  the  United  States  had 

eventually  adopted  the  generous  resolution  of  declaring  in  force  the 
Doctrine  announced  by  President  Monroe  in  1823  and  of  becoming,  in 
accordance  therewith,  the  energetic  defender  of  our  rights!18 

On  the  following  day  President  Antonio  Fernandez  of  the  state  of 
Falc6n  addressed  a special  message  to  the  legislature  of  his  state 
which  began  in  these  words: 

The  Congress  of  the  great  North- American  nation  and  her  worthy 
President  have  given  such  decided  manifestations  of  sympathy  in  favor 
of  Venezuela  with  regard  to  the  Guiana  boundary  that,  from  our  high- 
est official  circles  to  our  humblest  villages,  voices  of  gratitude  have 
been  heard. 19 

Upon  the  same  day  the  legislature  of  that  state  adopted  a reso- 
lution asking  the  national  congress  to  pass  an  act  that  would 
express  Venezuela’s  acknowlegment  of  the  aid  which  the 
United  States  had  offered  in  the  boundary  dispute  with  England. 20 

In  response  to  a message  of  the  president,  on  January  11, 
the  legislature  of  the  state  of  the  Andes,  declaring  that  the 
United  States  through  her  President  had  invoked  “the  Doctrine 
of  Monroe  to  protect  Venezuelan  soil  from  unjust  usurpation”, 

17  Diario  de  Caracas , February  13,  1896. 

18  Ibid.,  January  14,  1896. 

19  Ibid. 

10  Ibid .,  January  23,  1896. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


7 


resolved  “to  protest  energetically  against  the  unjustifiable  ag- 
gressions of  England”  and  to  solicit  of  the  national  congress  an 
expression  of  gratitude  to  the  United  States  government  for  “the 
generous  intervention  which  it  had  decided  to  make  in  the 

frontier  diff erences ” 21  Two  weeks  later  the  legislature 

of  the  state  of  Zamora,  “hearkening  to  the  voice  of  gratitude” 
that  resounded  from  one  end  of  Venezuela  to  the  other,  “heap- 
ing benedictions  upon  the  noble  and  generous  proceedings  of  the 
most  excellent  President  of  the  United  States”,  who  to  prevent 
England  from  despoiling  Venezuela  of  her  territory,  had  pro- 
claimed “the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  be  an  inviolable  principle  of 
international  law”,  resolved  to  transmit  to  President  Cleveland, 
as  well  as  to  the  Congress  and  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
through  the  American  minister  at  Caracas,  the  homage  of  its 
profound  gratitude.  It  further  resolved  to  ask  the  national  con- 
gress to  express  at  the  next  session  by  a solemn  resolution  Vene- 
zuela’s thankfulness  to  the  United  States  for  her  generous 
intervention. 22 

Some  interesting  comments  upon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  ap- 
peared in  the  Diario  de  Caracas,  the  organ  of  the  Venezuelan 
government.  On  January  13,  1896,  that  newspaper  declared: 

Propitious  winds  now  blow  from  one  extreme  of  the  continent  to 
the  other.  The  right  of  preservation  prevails  over  every  other  con- 
sideration; and  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  based  on  this  right  which  is 
vital  for  individuals  and  for  organizations,  now  assumes  the  character 
of  a formidable  principle: — it  is  a formula  that  will  preserve  the  exist- 
ence of  our  incipient  democracies.  ...  To  the  policy  of  the  United 
States,  which  is  designed  to  keep  this  doctrine  vigorous,  the  other 
nations  of  America  ought  to  respond.  Isolated  they  can  do  nothing 
for  themselves,  butjjnited  they  will  constitute  a respectable  and  effi- 
cacious force  for  the  protection  of  their  sovereignty  against  any  foreign 
invasion. 


21  Diario  de  Caracas,  January  17,  1896. 

22  Ibid.,  February  6,  1896. 


8 THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 

On  February  7 that  journal  made  this  further  comment: 

In  the  Old  World  the  Hispanic  American  countries  are  generally 
considered  as  semi-barbarous,  without  sufficient  strength  to  assure  the 
inviolability  of  their  rights  or  to  make  themselves  respected  in  any 
emergency.  European  states  have  viewed  those  countries  as  an  easy 
prize — a prey  in  which  powerful  nations  might  with  impunity  fasten 
their  teeth,  by  extending  their  conquests  and  by  advocating  unjust 
demands  and  claims.  Experience  has  demonstrated  the  necessity  of 
terminating  these  abuses.  It  has  shown  the  need  for  a union  of  the 
forces  of  the  continent  to  guarantee  mutually  the  rights  and  preroga- 
tives of  each  one  of  the  confederated  nations.  . . . President 

Monroe  furnished  a formula  in  the  celebrated  message  that  bears  his 
name;  Cleveland  and  the  United  States  Congress  have  amplified  it  in 
connection  with  our  dispute  with  England;  and  eventually  there  is 
spreading  from  the  Hudson  River  to  Cape  Horn  the  conception  of  a 
grand  American  alliance  as  the  most  expeditious  and  imperative  meas- 
ure for  the  salvation  of  the  rights  and  the  sovereignty  of  our  young 
republics. 

On  February  20,  1896,  President  Crespo  sent  a significant 
message  to  the  Venezuelan  congress.  After  mentioning  “the 
act  of  noble  justice”  of  the  United  States  government  in  re- 
gard to  the  threat  upon  the  integrity  of  the  American  nations 
caused  by  the  pending  boundary  dispute,  he  suggested  that 
congress  should  give  concrete  expression  to  the  nation’s  grati- 
tude. 23  Thus  it  was  that  on  March  9 following  both  houses  of 
Venezuela’s  congress  adopted  four  declarations:  (1)  that  as  the 
advocate  of  “the  territorial  integrity  of  the  independent  nations 
of  the  New  World,”  the  President  of  the  United  States  had 
“acquired  a special  claim  to  the  gratitude  of  the  people  of  this 
continent”;  (2)  that  with  regard  to  an  “ancient  and  provoking 
controversy”  Cleveland  had  suggested  an  important  viewpoint 
from  which  it  could  be  observed  that  the  doctrine  of  “the 
theoretical  equality  of  states”  was  “the  most  respectable  prin- 
ciple of  international  life”;  (3)  that  by  its  response  to  “the 
noble  ideas  of  the  chief  magistrate”  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  had  “opened  new  and  hopeful  vistas  in  a dispute”  which 


**  Diario  de  Caracas,  February  24,  1896. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


9 


had  been  confined  to  “the  narrow  sphere  of  fruitless  discussion 
with  peril  to  the  general  interests  of  the  continent”;  and  (4) 
that,  because  of  their  policy,  the  Supreme  Magistrates  of  the 
United  States  deserved  “in  a singular  manner  an  expression  of 
affection”  which  would  embody  “all  the  grateful  sentiments”  of 
the  Venezuelan  republic  “toward  the  glorious  fatherland  of 
Washington  and  Monroe!”  The  Venezuelan  congress  conse- 
quently resolved  to 

bestow  upon  the  honorable  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America 
and  upon  the  most  excellent  President  of  that  nation,  an  homage  of 
gratitude  for  the  eminent  service  which  they  have  rendered  to  the  other 
independent  peoples  of  the  New  World,  and  especially  to  the  Vene- 
zuelan people,  by  the  policy  of  promoting  the  peaceful  and  decorous 
settlement  of  the  boundary  controversy  with  British  Guiana  in  a manner 
consonant  with  international  justice. 24 

In  a report  of  the  committee  of  foreign  relations  of  the  Vene- 
zuelan chamber  of  deputies  the  policy  of  the  United  States  was 
described  as  an  “application  of  the  celebrated  Doctrine  of 
Monroe”.25 

Similar  sentiments  were  expressed  in  other  Hispanic  Ameri- 
can countries.  Both  houses  of  congress  of  the  United  States  of 
Brazil  unanimously  adopted  a motion  approving  President 
Cleveland’s  message  of  December  17.  The  upper  house  of  that 
congress  transmitted  greetings  to  the  United  States  Senate  about 
this  message,  declaring  that  Cleveland  had  “strenuously” 
guarded  “the  dignity,  the  sovereignty,  and  the  freedom  of  the 
American  nations”.26 

In  Guayaquil,  Ecuador,  El  Tiempo  published  an  article  en- 
titled “International  Questions”,  stating  that  the  attitude 
assumed  by  the  United  States  in  the  boundary  dispute  had 
profoundly  affected  the  minds  of  Spanish  Americans: 

24  Acuerdo  del  Congreso  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  Venezuela  dictado  el  9 de  Marzo 
de  1896 , pp.  7-9. 

26  Diario  de  Caracas,  April  14,  1896. 

26  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1895,  part  I,  p.  76. 


10 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


Every  person  now  feels  that  the  saving  Doctrine  of  Monroe  will 
cease  to  be  a purely  speculative  principle  or  a principle  of  merely  his- 
toric value,  as  it  has  been  designated,  and  that  it  will  become  a formula 
of  our  public  international  law.  If  the  Great  Republic  actually  wishes 
to  make  effective  her  protective  influence  in  favor  of  the  weak  nation- 
alities of  Spanish  America,  it  will  become  the  safeguard  of  the  interests 
of  the  continent.  Until  the  present  moment,  we  have  been  almost 
constantly  threatened  by  the  powerful  influences  of  foreign  nations 
that  have  interests  which  they  wish  to  make  prevail  in  America. 
. . . We  are  weak — this  is  the  reason  for  the  outrage.  The  resolute 

attitude  of  the  United  States  in  behalf  of  Spanish  American  interests 
involves  neither  the  implicit  acceptance  by  small  republics  of  a protec- 
torate with  shameful  results  nor  a tutelage  of  indefinite  duration. 27 

At  the  capital  of  Guatemala,  on  January  24,  1896,  a masonic 
lodge  drew  up  an  address  to  President  Cleveland,  thanking  him 
for  the  position  which  he  had  taken  in  the  Anglo-Venezuelan 
dispute.  It  declared  that  he  had  given  “ complete  efficacy  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine/’  which  had  been 

no  more  than  a speculative  hope  with  regard  to  the  ambitious  attempts 
of  certain  European  powers  to  absorb  the  weak  countries  of  America. 
. . . For,  if  Monroe  announced  the  Doctrine  which  bears  his  name 

. . . Cleveland  is  the  personage  who  gave  it  living  reality  in  the  law 

of  nations  and  in  the  practical  jurisprudence  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth! 
Monroe  and  Cleveland  will  be  the  personages  consecrated  by  law  in 
the  nineteenth  century;  and  their  names  will  become  a symbol  of  re- 
demption in  the  melancholy  struggle  of  the  American  peoples  for  the 
vindication  of  their  rights!28 

About  the  same  time  El  Ferrocarril  of  Sonsonata  in  Salvador 
also  praised  Cleveland  and  Monroe: 

Monroe  has  opened  to  Cleveland  the  doors  of  the  temple.  In  his 
turn  Cleveland,  if  possible,  has  conferred  greater  immortality  upon 
Monroe.  America  has  immortalized  both  presidents,  for  she  does  jus- 
tice to  her  benefactors.  The  message  of  Cleveland  . . . has  been  the 

complement  of  American  independence;  or  rather  this  state  paper, 

27  As  quoted  in  Diario  de  Caracas , February  5,  1896. 

28  As  reprinted  from  El  Progreso  Nacional,  Guatemala,  in  Diario  de  Caracas, 
April  30,  1896. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


11 


which  has  made  effective  and  practical  a saving  Doctrine  that  for  many 
years  was  considered  platonic  and  theoretical,  has  had  the  effect  of  a 
moral  and  political  victory!  Without  cannon  or  bloodshed  the  expo- 
sition of  the  illustrious  President  has  been  as  significant  as  a new  battle 
of  Ayacucho : it  is  a new  seal  of  our  continental  emancipation ! Spanish 
Americans  actually  do  not  know  whether  to  accord  more  greatness  and 
nobility  to  the  champions  of  their  independence  or  to  Monroe  and 
Cleveland  — the  champions  of  their  international  emancipation. 
. . . In  that  achievement  Monroe  has  been  the  brain  and  Cleveland 

the  arm!29 

The  president  of  Mexico  was  asked  to  express  his  sentiments 
regarding  Cleveland’s  policy.  Hence  when  he  opened  a session 
of  the  Mexican  congress  on  April  10,  1896,  President  Dfaz 
expressed  his  opinion  concerning  the  Monroe  Doctrine: 

Without  entering  into  discussions  in  respect  to  its  origin  and  to  the 
historic  moment  which  caused  its  enunciation,  without  considering  the 
details  about  the  just  limitations  that  its  own  author  set  to  it,  and 
which  President  Cleveland  has  recalled  with  so  much  acumen,  the 
government  of  Mexico  cannot  do  less  than  show  itself  the  partisan  of 
a Doctrine  that  condemns  as  contrary  to  the  established  order  any 
attack  of  monarchial  Europe  upon  the  republics  of  America — those  in- 
dependent nations  which  are  today  administered  under  a popular  form 
of  government. 

President  Dfaz  then  suggested  that  each  of  the  republics  of 
the  continent, 

by  means  of  a declaration  similar  to  that  of  President  Monroe  should 
proclaim  that  an  attack  by  any  foreign  power  which  aims  to  impair  the 
territory  or  the  independence  or  to  alter  the  institutions  of  one  of  the 
American  republics  would  be  considered,  by  each  nation  making  the 
declaration,  as  an  offense  against  herself.  ...  In  this  manner  the 
Doctrine  which  is  today  designated  the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  become 
a truly  American  Doctrine  in  the  most  ample  sense.  J . 3,) 

29  El  Ferrocarril,  Sonsonata,  El  Salvador,  as  quoted  in  El  Pregonero,  March 
18,  1896. 

*°  As  quoted  in  La  Epoca,  Bogota,  June  2,  1896. 


12 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


President  Cleveland’s  policy  attracted  considerable  attention 
in  Colombia’s  capital.  On  January  4,  1896,  La  Epoca  of  Bogota 
published  an  editorial  entitled  “The  Practice  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine”.  The  editor  praised  the  application  of  that  Doc- 
trine by  President  Cleveland.  He  declared  that,  confronted  by 
England’s  abuse  of  force,  the  land  of  Washington  had  shocked 
Europe  by  constituting  herself,  in  the  name  of  justice  and  of  the 
New  World,  an  arbitrator  between  the  strong  and  the  weak 
for  the  adjudication  of  the  dispute.  Comparing  Lord  Salisbury 
with  the  Prince  of  Denmark,  he  asserted  that,  since  the  Presi- 
dent’s message,  the  noble  lord’s  native  hue  of  resolution  had 
been  sicklied  o’er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought.  Newspapers 
of  Bogota  soon  published  Cleveland’s  message  in  Spanish.31  On 
January  9,  El  Heraldo  contained  an  editorial  entitled  “The  New 
Year”  which  was  introduced  by  pictures  of  Monroe  and  Cleve- 
land. That  journal  expressed  its  opinion  of  Cleveland’s  policy 
thus: 

Admirable  is  the  role  which  the  Great  Republic  founded  by  the  vir- 
tuous Washington  plays  in  the  Guiana  controversy!  By  the  side  of 
Washington  there  will  figure  honorably  in  history  Monroe  and  Cleve- 
land, his  worthy  successors.  Both  of  honest  heart:  the  first  was  a 
glorious  precursor  of  the  independence  of  his  country;  and  the  second 
is  conspicuous  among  all  the  politicians  of  the  present  epoch  because 
of  the  elevation  of  his  views  and  the  rectitude  of  his  character! 

Prominent  citizens  of  Bogota  gave  a banquet  to  the  ministers 
of  Venezuela  and  the  United  States  at  that  capital  to  show  their 
appreciation  of  the  use  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  Anglo- 
Venezuelan  disputQ.  This  celebration  was  held  in  a hall  which 
was  decorated  with  the  flags  of  Venezuela  and  the  United 
States  and  adorned  with  portraits  of  Washington,  Bolivar,  and 
Cleveland.  Upon  that  occasion  the  Colombian  thinker,  Salvador 
Camacho  Rolddn,  made  an  address  lauding  the  actions  of  Cleve- 
land who  had 

ratified  the  declarations  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  connection  with  the 
discussions  about  the  boundary  between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana. 

31  La  fipoca,  January  7,  1896;  El  Heraldo , Bogota,  January  23,  1896. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


13 


Camacho  Roldfin  said  that 

from  every  point  of  view  the  intervention  of  the  United  States  in  the 
discussions  of  Great  Britain  with  Venezuela  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant international  events  of  the  nineteenth  century.  In  Mr.  Cleveland’s 
mind  there  is  not  a shadow  of  egotism  but  simply  a spirit  of  elevated 
justice  and  the  magnanimity  of  the  strong  in  defense  of  the  rights  of 
the  weak.  ...  32 

At  that  banquet  the  Colombian  poet,  Diego  Uribe,  toasted  Co- 
lombia’s sister,  Venezuela,  and  chanted  the  praises  of  the  United 
States  as  the  fountain  of  American  progress,  the  nation  which 
had  conferred  liberty  upon  the  slaves — the  land  where  America 
could  behold  shining  purely  and  serenely,  la  Libertadl 33 

Salud  por  ese  pueblo  soberano 
Siempre  en  nobleza  y en  honor  fecundo, 

Que  & trav^s  de  las  olas  del  Oceano 
Tiende  hacia  el  Sol  su  poderoso  mano 

Para  afianzar  la  libertad  de  un  mundo. 

In  phrases  scarcely  less  poetic  Jos6  Marfa  Quijano  Wallis 
gave  a toast  in  honor  of  the  ministers  of  Venezuela  and  of  the 
United  States  at  Bogotd.  Quijano  Wallis  characterized  Cleve- 
land’s message  as  “noble  and  energetic”.  He  declared  that, 
invoking  the  political  maxims  of  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Monroe, 
the  United  States  had  faced  the  Mistress  of  the  Seas  and  had 
addressed  to  that  powerful  usurper  these  words: 

When  in  families  that  lack  maternal  support  the  young  and  feeble 
daughters  are  threatened  with  unjust  aggressions,  the  oldest  sister  takes 
the  place  of  the  mother  in  order  to  support  them  and  to  maintain  their 
rights.  In  the  family  of  American  nations,  I am  that  elder  sister;  and 
I shall  know  how  to  fulfill  that  dignified  and  noble  mission.  The  Con- 
tinent of  Columbus  is  my  home  and  the  home  of  my  family.  Our 
right  of  exclusive  property  over  it  is  inalienable;  for  it  emanates  from 
nature  and  from  our  strength!  I shall  not  permit  you  to  profane  it, 
nor  to  usurp  it!  My  flag  shall  shield  its  interests,  which  are  also  mine! 

**  El  Heraldo,  January  9,  1896. 

*•  La  £pocat  January  10,  1896. 


14 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


My  ships  will  protect  its  ports  against  the  explosions  of  your  bombs; 
and  the  breasts  of  my  soldiers,  if  need  be,  will  receive  the  shots  of  your 
cannon  at  the  same  time  as  the  breasts  of  Venezuelans!34 

Although  not  fully  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  the  policy 
of  the  United  States  had  been  praised  in  Hispanic  America,  yet 
m a letter  to  President  Cleveland  on  November  28,  1896,  Presi- 
dent Crespo  said: 

The  vigor  with  which  you  have  played  your  active  role  in  this  noble 
task — whatever  may  be  the  final  outcome — will  make  your  name 
worthy  of  eternal  praise  not  only  in  your  own  great  nation  and  in  Vene- 
zuela but  in  the  entire  American  continent.35 

When  the  terms  of  the  proposed  Anglo-Venezuelan  treaty  of 
arbitration  became  known  in  Caracas  some  dissatisfaction  was 
indeed  displayed.  Expressing  gratitude  at  the  application  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  by  the  United  States,  Tomas  Michelena 
voiced  his  displeasure  with  the  treaty  because  it  seemingly 
confirmed  England’s  territorial  claims.36  On  December  11, 
1896,  El  P regoner o contained  an  editorial  upon  the  same  topic. 
Its  most  emphatic  objection  was  couched  in  these  words,  evi- 
dently referring  to  the  doctrine  of  prescription  embodied  in  the 
convention : 

One  thing  is  clear  from  the  project  of  the  treaty: — England  wishes  to 
possess  herself  legally  of  what  she  occupied  by  force. 

But  the  Venezuelan  secretary  of  foreign  relations,  J.  E.  Rojas, 
rendered  a more  tolerant  judgment.  In  his  message  to  congress 
on  February  20,  1897,  he  said: 

The  good  offices  thus  exercised  by  the  government  at  Washington 
have  been  in  conformity  with  the  desires  of  Venezuela.  That  country 
appealed  to  the  Great  Republic  for  a decorous  solution  of  its  conflict 
with  Great  Britain,  and  her  appeal  was  heard.  Although  at  present 

34  Ibid.,  January  11,  1896. 

35  Reprinted  from  the  Boletin  Oficial,  in  El  Pregonero,  December  8,  1896. 
Crespo’s  letter  was  in  reply  to  a letter  from  Cleveland,  dated  November  12,  1896. 

36  Michelena  mentioned  not  only  Cleveland’s  message  but  “the  incomparable 
note  of  Secretary  Olney”,  El  Pregonero,  December  10,  1896. 


APPRECIATIONS  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 


15 


the  British  cabinet  insists  upon  a territorial  exclusion  openly  rejected 
by  Venezuela  some  time  ago,  yet  the  path  marked  out  by  the  United 
States  was  the  one  best  adapted  to  bring  the  contending  nations  with 
the  least  delay  to  a positive  harmony  of  opinions  about  arbitration.37 

After  the  irritating  boundary  controversy  was  peacefully  ad- 
justed by  an  arbitral  decision  that  partook  of  the  nature  of  a 
compromise,  in  a commentary  upon  the  policy  pursued  by  the 
United  States  toward  Hispanic  America,  the  Venezuelan  lit- 
terateur, Rufino  Blanco-Fombona,  aptly  said: 

If  the  United  States  should  aid  Hispanic  Americans  in  case  of  a con- 
flict, when  the  interest  of  the  people  who  proclaimed  that  Doctrine  runs 
parallel  to  our  interest,  in  order  that  the  Empire  of  a European  power 
may  not  rival  her  upon  this  continent — blessed  be  the  name  of  Monroe ! 
Used  as  a whet  to  the  epicurean  appetite  of  certain  Yankees,  the  Doc- 
trine of  Monroe  would  be  a medicine  no  less  dangerous  than  the  malady 
which  it  was  designed  to  cure!  But  how  that  Doctrine  has  puckered 
the  faces  of  the  filibustering  powers  of  Europe!  The  truth  is  that  with- 
out the  Monroe  Doctrine,  Venezuela  would  have  lost  Guiana,  and  Eng- 
land would  have  been  planted  upon  the  banks  of  the  Orinoco  River, 
soon  to  become  its  Mistress!38 

What  conclusions  do  this  study  justify?  It  is  clear  that 
President  Cleveland’s  message  and  not  Secretary  Olney’s  dis- 
patch was  the  state  paper  upon  which  Hispanic  American  edi- 
tors and  publicists  focused  their  attention.  There  is  ample 
evidence  to  prove  that  in  1895  and  1896  the  people  of  Venezuela 
gladly  welcomed  the  application  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  their 
long-standing  boundary  dispute  with  Great  Britain.  Evidence 
likewise  shows  that — contrary  to  views  entertained  by  some 
students  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine — this  application  evoked  fav- 
orable appreciations  in  Colombia,  Brazil,  Ecuador,  Central 
America,  and  Mexico.  The  national  governments  of  Venezuela 
and  Brazil  publicly  expressed  their  sincere  gratification  at  Cleve- 
land’s policy.  In  certain  parts  of  Hispanic  America  that  policy 

37  Libro  Amarillo  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  Venezuela , 1897,  p.  xxvii.  Rojas 
mentioned  Venezuela’s  gratitude  to  Cleveland,  to  his  ‘ ‘very  worthy  secretary  of 
state,  Mr.  Olney”;  and  to  the  United  States  Congress,  ibid.}  p.  xxviii. 

38  Blanco-Fombona,  La  Americanizacidn  del  Mundo , 11. 


16 


THE  HISPANIC  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  REVIEW 


evoked  sentiments  favoring  a Pan  American  Monroe  Doctrine 
as  well  as  suggestions  concerning  an  American  league  of  nations. 
These  favorable  reactions  to  the  policy  of  the  United  States 
toward  Venezuela — in  contrast  with  unfavorable  criticisms 
evoked  by  other  “applications”  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine — sup- 
port the  conclusion  that,  although  Hispanic  American  thinkers 
have  disapproved  of  “the  india-rubber  Doctrine”  upon  certain 
occasions,  as  when  used  to  justify  the  establishment  of  a pro- 
tectorate over  a nation  of  Hispanic  America,  yet  they  have 
approved  the  Monroe  Doctrine  when  it  was  simply  used  to 
protect  an  Hispanic  American  state  against  foreign  aggression. 
The  application  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  Anglo-Venezuelan 
boundary  controversy  is  perhaps  unique  because  few  unfavora- 
ble comments  were  made  by  Hispanic  Americans  upon  the 
policy  pursued  by  the  United  States. 

William  Spence  Robertson. 


